Jump to content

Interpretations of QM


Genady
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

both reliable and easy to live with

Then it's Copenhagen (for me).

18 minutes ago, geordief said:

"To understand you know too soon" 

"It's all right  Ma" B.D.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Alright,_Ma_(I'm_Only_Bleeding)

Honestly, I don't understand this reference. Could you explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

ignore interpretations stick to the numbers

Isn't it the Copenhagen interpretation?

27 minutes ago, Genady said:
47 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

both reliable and easy to live with

Then it's Copenhagen (for me).

The non-Copenhagen interpretations seem to try to adjust QM to our classical intuition. It seems to me easier to adjust the intuition to QM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

Isn't it the Copenhagen interpretation?

If your applying the QM mathematical method then yes that follows the Copenhagen interpretation. However QM isn't the only methodology other methodologies can have their own subsequent interpretations. In essence the choice breaks down to which mathematical method best describes the state or evolution of states. If you don't religiously apply one theory over another but apply the aspects that  best suit the situation you will invariably gain a far better understanding of how physics describe physical processes.

However QM in an of itself has several different interpretations as to the deterministic and stochastic aspects. I lost track of the numerous QM based interpretations there are years ago lol

 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Genady said:

 

Honestly, I don't understand this reference. Could you explain?

Just a throwaway  observation that the line in the (very great) song  can be interpreted to be saying that apparent knowledge  of a situation is a mirage and that the meaning lies further down the road

 

One of my favourite songs and I used this thread to shoehorn it into the public arena since I do see a parallel of sorts(not scientific admittedly)😉

 

 

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a good book for the layman  that describes  the historical steps that came in the development  of QM

 

Did any of  the  researchers rely on their  interpretation of what was "actually " happening or was it just a case of accumulating  observations and finding models to predict behaviour  as a result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I would have to say a combination of both. Sometimes the tests developed to test an interpretation has led to QM development. Other times its the tests of a mathematical model that led to QM development.

Would I be right to guess  that most instances of the former  lead to a QM development because the tests results run counter to what the interpretation suggested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

Did the results of the tests justify his prior  interpretation?(if that is a sensible question)

His interpretation was hidden variables. Bell came up with the test, after Einstein's death. The test refuted Einstein's interpretation.

Edited by Genady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

His interpretation was hidden variables. Bell came up with the test, after Einstein's death. The test refuted Einstein's interpretation.

Bell's test refuted local  hidden variables.

Edited by Lorentz Jr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Correct. (which was the Einstein's interpretation)

Right. And local hidden variables means particles + hidden variables.

So you can keep particles if you give up hidden variables, or you can keep hidden variables if you give up particles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

I wouldn't know about most instances. Its enough to be aware that as both modelling and interpretations lead to testing they both are useful tools in model development QM as well others.

Susskind said in one of his lectures something like, "Who knows what Heisenberg was smoking when he came up with the matrix mechanics."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, geordief said:

Is there a good book for the layman  that describes  the historical steps that came in the development  of QM

The one that comes to mind is “Helgoland” by Carlo Rovelli; I found it to be a very good read. Do bear in mind though the final conclusion of the book does promote his own interpretation of QM, which is Relational Quantum Mechanics. But the historical overview is quite good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.